From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
Date: | 2019-05-07 13:34:42 |
Message-ID: | 18035.1557236082@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:57 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> On 2019-05-06 11:10:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think it's legitimate to question whether sending additional
>>> invalidation messages as part of the design of this feature is a good
>>> idea.
>> I don't think it's an actual problem. We'd only do so when creating an
>> FSM, or when freeing up additional space that'd otherwise not be visible
>> to other backends.
> The other place we need to consider for this is when one of the
> backends updates its map (due to unavailability of space in the
> existing set of pages). We can choose not to send invalidation in
> this case, but then different backends need to identify the same thing
> themselves and reconstruct the map again.
I'm inclined to wonder why bother with invals at all. The odds are
quite good that no other backend will care (which, I imagine, is the
reasoning behind why the original patch was designed like it was).
A table that has a lot of concurrent write activity on it is unlikely
to stay small enough to not have a FSM for long.
The approach I'm imagining here is not too different from Robert's
"just search the table's pages every time" straw-man. Backends would
cache the results of their own searches, but not communicate about it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-05-07 13:39:57 | Re: [PATCH v1] Add a way to supply stdin to TAP tests |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-05-07 13:17:42 | Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins |